Experts’ views on improving the quality of non-stranger rape complainants’ accounts

Abstract

Recent research consistently indicates that poor justice outcomes for non-stranger rape cases are caused in large part by limitations in the evidential relevance and judicial usefulness of accounts provided by complainants. As direct and other objective corroborating evidence is usually absent, the success of most police investigations and prosecutions of non-stranger rape relies heavily on complainants’ accounts. However, no study to date seems to have directly examined how the evidential relevance and judicial usefulness of such accounts can be improved. The present study explored the views of 16 American, Australian and British experts who work in the fields of sexual violence, investigative interviewing and criminal justice, on (a) information that needs to be elicited by police interviewers in order to obtain an evidentially relevant account from non-stranger rape complainants during their investigative interview; (b) requirements regarding a judicially useful account provided by non-stranger rape complainants and how these can be achieved; and (c) whether the current level of police interviewers’ knowledge of evidentially relevant and judicially useful accounts employed by them during investigative interviews with non-stranger rape complainants can be improved. And if so, how? Thematic analysis revealed three broad areas for improvements: (i) focus police interviewers’ questioning specifically on the legal elements and context of non-stranger rape; (ii) elicit clear, chronological and concise accounts; and (iii) provide evidence-based training and interview guidance. These areas, along with participants’ recommendations, are outlined. The implications of the present study and suggestions for future research are discussed.